Evidence: Alphabetical
- Multiple U.S. administrations have continually supported ratification of UNCLOS to preserve freedom of navigation
- Many sovereignty costs of the convention have already been accepted by U.S. in other agreements
- Most coastal states have already adapted their maritime law to bring it into compliance with UNCLOS
- Minimal benefit over status quo of U.S. having seat on CLCS
- Most significant seabed mineral deposits lie within EEZ
- Many countries use UNCLOS to attack proliferation security initiative
- Most firms rationally understand there is little benefit from gaining international recognition for their seabed claim
- Major trade industry groups support US ratification of UNCLOS because they understand the impact it would have on facilitating international trade
- Multiple examples where US freedom of navigation rights are threatened by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- Maritime disputes with China won't be solved by legal wrangling but asserting rights through diplomacy and establishing a pattern of state practice
- Multiple national security rationales for ratifying UNCLOS
- Multiple avenues exist under UNCLOS for our adversaries to attack U.S. in court
- Members of CLCS are bound by agreement not to act as agent of their respective governments, undermining "seat at the table" argument
- Most important step U.S can take to shore up its Arctic Strategy is to ratify UNCLOS
- Many countries are trying to expand their influence within Arctic Council to have a say over arctic resources
- Military leadership has been overwhelmingly behind accession to UNCLOS
- Multilateral cooperation to curb Chinese aggression in South China Seas depends on U.S. adherence to and ratification of UNCLOS
- Multiple examples of Chinese excessive naval claims that run afoul of UNCLOS
- Multinational corporations prefer stability of international regimes like UNCLOS over arbitrary local jurisdictions
- Multiple similarities between international approaches for the management of the ocean regime and the common gene pool
- Multiple examples of state noncompliance with UNCLOS
- Modest revenue sharing system in UNCLOS will not pose any burden on extracting industries and is in U.S. best interests
- Multiple examples of encroachment on U.S. underseas cable rights that ratifying UNCLOS would help address
- Mining companies have incentive to over develop resource in inefficient manner to avoid paying higher royalty share
- Multiple states have opted out of dispute resolution for settling issues with military activities in their EEZ
- Multiple advantages for U.S. from ratification of UNCLOS
- Multiple states have competing claims for jurisdiction over the North Pole
- Multiple states, corporate entities, and NGOs would have cause to challenge U.S. companies claims to resources outside of UNCLOS
- Multiple steps U.S. can take to enhance security in Arctic that do not involve ratifying UNCLOS
- Multiple reasons to doubt U.S. accession to UNCLOS would help resolve territorial disputes in South China Sea
- Multiple reasons why U.S. accession to UNCLOS would help resolve territorial disputes in South China Sea
- Melting of Arctic ice could dramatically increase possibilities for global shipping, reducing time by almost a week for circumpolar routes
- Melting of the Arctic is a planetary crisis that requires U.S. leadership and willingness to cooperate
- Multiple historical examples of US ability to preserve its ECS rights through bilateral or unilateral agreements
- Multilateral solutions are essential for resolving Arctic disputes, cannot wait for countries to work their issues out bilaterally
- Multilateral solutions for resolving Arctic disputes starts with U.S. ratification of UNCLOS to be better to strengthen and guide multilateral fora